Thanks, Glenn.

I suppose the only valid issues that remain are:

1) Will "Billy" gather the courage to reveal his full name?

2) Will "Billy" have the integrity to publicly apologize to Glenn Greenwald and everyone else at The BRAD BLOG whose time he wasted with his baseless accusations?

If Glenn Greenwald thinks James Rosen's article was based on "a run-of-the-mill leak that happens constantly in Washington," let's have an example. When was the last time something like this happened?

Unfortunately, Glenn Greenwald is still lying incessantly. By saying this happens constantly, he proved my point to perfection. I needn't go any further, but I will.

Greenwald says nobody even noticed Rosen's article, as if that somehow supports his position. But it does not. He only said that in hopes of tricking unsophisticated readers.

Greenwald says nobody "claimed that this leak resulted in harm to anyone or blew anyone's cover." Yet he knows perfectly well that the government won't likely release that kind of information even if it is so. He's again trying to trick unsophisticated readers. (He thinks you're stupid.)

Greenwald calls me an Obama follower, inferring that Obama followers are not reliable sources of information. However, I am not an Obama follower, and if I were, that wouldn't change the truth. This is just another nonsensical attack intended to trick unsophisticated readers.

He returns to these nonsensical themes and adds a few others, but the only thing he proves by doing so is that I was absolutely right about him.

Of course, the one thing Greenwald doesn't discuss is the actual content of James Rosen's article. The article is a laundry list of ultra-sensitive intelligence about North Korea's nuclear weapons programs (among other things). For more on the content of the Rosen article, please read my posts from yesterday (in response to Brad's previous article). Also, the Atlantic did some good work today.

Lastly, all I did was post a comment on a webpage. What the hell?

Billy,
No, all you did was post a comment of still unsubstantiated(except in your mind)crap. You have proven nothing.

Billy has had a bit too much Billy Beer but not enough teaching of far minded critical thinking.

Long live Glenn Greenwald!

Holder must go!

Billy, are you really that stupid? Or is it that you are intellectually dishonest?

Do you really believe that, after Glenn blew gaping holes in your unsubstantiated opinion, you can overcome that by simply repeating your unsubstantiated opinion?

Glenn,

Would you expect the CIA or the Defense Department to make a big deal if the solicited classified information resulted in the exposure of sources or strategy? This is where Billy is spot on. You do not draw attention to your weakness or mistakes in hopes of buying time to protect sources and assets and the lack of a kerfuffle does not validate your perspective.

The bottom line is dear Glenn you do not know with any level of certainty that US intelligence capabilities were damaged or not.

The fine line that Rosen and any others who feel similarly cross is the ACTIVE solicitation of classified information. It is one thing to take information offered it is quite another to actively seek out persons to become a source. I and the DOJ consider that a form of spying.

For those who think this is a jsut a case of press intimidation you need to take three things into account. The first is that this person works for an unabashed political PROPAGANDA organization who has a history of distorting the facts for partisan political advantage without regard for national security and at the expense of the country as a whole. Second, this is an organization whose parent company has a history of illegally obtaining information and general criminal behavior in the execution of their "news" activities.

Lastly, one has to understand the nature of the contacts that are the subject of the DOJ investigation. Nothing more clearly exemplifies how DIFFERENT these contacts were than typical investigation activities than the following excerpt from the seized e-mails:

"Let�s break some new, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it - or force the administration�s hand to go in the right direction, if possible."

So dear Glenn if that is how you think investigative journalism is supposed to work I think you are deserving of all the scrutiny the DOJ has given Mr. Rosen.

I just love the fact that:

A) Brad can get a response from Glenn Greenwald, clearly a hero and champion for truth in these upside down times, almost immediately;

B) Brad and the regulars commenting on his site do not generally have the cultist partisan mindset but principles which dictate their opinions which are based on what they believe to be proven (i.e. documented) reality, rather than knee-jerk reactions to attacking their "side";

C) Brad actually took the time to inform and allow Glenn to respond to one of the sites posters, something I've never seen happen anywhere else.

That's why its so fun (and important) to check in here regularly, though I will try to avoid overly contentious posts like Billy's and being predictably blasted by Brad in the future (I got reamed for my "passive aggressive" comments on AGW fairly recently. For the record, I did sincerely apologize for not keeping things more civil - but, in my defense, I get worked up when I'm implied to either be crazy or a paid shill).

stumptownhero #7,

The problem is that Holder is fair ... very fair ... like Coach Bear Bryant was fair according to one of his linebackers.

"Coach Bryant was very fair, he treated all of us like garbage."

You think the Holder only does this to Faux Snooze journalists?

Outta your mind boy, everyone is violated and treated like garbage.

We have to hold them accountable one at a time.

Scuze me while I don't kiss their ass, "scuze me while I kiss the sky."

Catching up on this story.

I see Rosen wasn't charged with anything.
The CIA has a source in North Korea gathering information.
Someone, a mole?, decides Fox "News" needs to know about this and leaks it to Rosen.
The government tries to find out who leaked it and they are condemed?
Isn't this much like the outing of Valerie Plame?

This to me looks like is another addition to Benghzi! IRS! and to see Drudge and Hotair have it as their top story says a lot.
To quote BooMan: "Tell me that the government has to "tolerate" leaks of this kind and I'm just going to call you an idiot." (Greenwald)
http://www.boomantribune...ory/2013/5/22/20937/8197

Billy said @ 2:

Lastly, all I did was post a comment on a webpage. What the hell?

Customer service. You're welcome.

I think you are on to something here, Brad. A web series where random over-the-top commenters are brought face to face with those they are flaming --- and the facts. Madcap antics ensue.

StumpTownHero said @ 6 & 7:

Would you expect the CIA or the Defense Department to make a big deal if the solicited classified information resulted in the exposure of sources or strategy? ... The bottom line is dear Glenn you do not know with any level of certainty that US intelligence capabilities were damaged or not.

It's remarkable to see the exact same arguments put forward by Republicans when support Bush's attack on journalists (for NSA spying details, etc.) now being used by Democrats --- or, at least those sympathetic to Obama rather than Bush.

The fine line that Rosen and any others who feel similarly cross is the ACTIVE solicitation of classified information. It is one thing to take information offered it is quite another to actively seek out persons to become a source. I and the DOJ consider that a form of spying.

Since when?

The first is that this person works for an unabashed political PROPAGANDA organization who has a history of distorting the facts for partisan political advantage without regard for national security and at the expense of the country as a whole. Second, this is an organization whose parent company has a history of illegally obtaining information and general criminal behavior in the execution of their "news" activities.

Okay, got it. You hate Fox "News" (justifiably). So how do you then justify similar massive intrusions by Obama's DoJ into the press freedoms of AP?

GWN said @ 10:

Isn't this much like the outing of Valerie Plame?

No. For one, no journalists were charged with being a co-conspirator in that case and, to my knowledge, didn't have their email and/or phone records secretly spied upon by the government in the course of the investigation.

To quote BooMan: "Tell me that the government has to "tolerate" leaks of this kind and I'm just going to call you an idiot." (Greenwald)

The issue is not whether "the government has to 'tolerate' leaks of this kind", but, rather, what they do about them. Plugging their own leaks is fine, but penalizing and spying on reporters --- even while leaking classified info themselves when they believe it will help the governments (their own) case --- is an entirely different and, as I see it, extraordinarily disturbing and chilling matter.

Also, please note, BooMan said this:

As I mentioned previously in discussion on this, I don't know the details of the actual case (having not read the court filings, etc.), but how do we know that Rosen knew "how the CIA got" the information? I don't see it in his 2009 story. Also, how do we know if Rosen talked to the CIA or not to find out if it was a problem to report it? He says, in the article, that

Finally, this just out from Ryan Lizza at New Yorker:

Seriously? Is that what folks --- like Billy and StumpTownHero --- really want their government doing to reporters? And, if you trust Obama to do it, do you also trust the Bush Administration and similar to do this? Spy on the emails of reporters for years on end? Really?

In stressing that Fox 'News' is essentially a propaganda outlet for the GOP and the radical right, Stumptownhero's comment @7 is reminiscent of the criticisms that were directed against the ACLU for its defense of the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, IL.

What partisans, like Stumptownhero, don't seem to appreciate is that the First Amendment does not simply protect those with whom we agree. It is just as vital to protect the 1st Amendment rights of those whose ideas we detest.

As far as the government's domestic spying activities, aren't we already at that scary place where government does indeed "[s]py on the emails of [randomly enter name of a person or organization] for years on end?"

http://www.time.com/time...e/0,8599,2074797,00.html

http://www.aclu.org/blog...d-emails-without-warrant

http://americablog.com/2...s-without-a-warrant.html

"NSA whistleblower says government illegally reading all our emails, phone texts, internet
usage"

http://www.businessinsid...-every-us-citizen-2012-7

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYT_Ne78GoU

Which makes me not so sympathetic to AP or the mainstream press in general, I mean why isn't this being blasted day after day by the corporate media? A blurb or two or one decent article about this in the corporate press doesn't qualify as reporting in my opinion.

I don't at all agree that the government should be bugging AP. That is scary. But not nearly as scary as potentially accessing few/some/all (who really knows) email sent in the United States year after year, not to mention voice conversations and whatever else those classified NSA and FBI data centers are collecting. Again the corporate press generally leaves the larger context of government illegality out of the story.

Even, ironically, AP: http://bigstory.ap.org/a...e-ap-phone-records-probe

I can't imagine it would be hard to throw in a line or two like: "It is not only AP which is the target of impermissible government surveillance, as reports and whistle-blowers have indicated that the government is collecting and analyzing digital communications of individuals and non-press organizations in violation of constitutional provisions. However the extent of the surveillance is not known since the government will not comment due to national security concerns." (Fictional quote, not in the article, but something about broader government intrusion should have been.)

In the end, even though I don't care about AP, I want to see them protected so that blogs like this, and other places where you can get important information, are safe and can continue to operate without censorship or worse.

To end on a humorous note, from the AP article above: "The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot, though the Obama administration continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement."

Moral of the AP story, respect the government even if it doesn't respect you.

I am really sorry that Billy has not followed the cases of many other reporters that have been targeted by many different departments of the US GOvernment.

I bet that he doesn't know that you, yourself Brad and Glen were both targeted by the US Chamber of Commerce! There are too many others besides Rosen to make this a once in a lifetime mistake. It is a policy to all eyes that are seeing the truth!

Greenwald grows in my estimation everyday. He's been one of few willing to address Obama fanatic's pathology - which is every bit as mindless as the evangelical/right wing cabal, and in some ways more dangerous as it's gutted so much of the Left. Through every broken promise from public financing to his upcoming reversal of the keystone pipeline Obama loyalists someone manage to go into quick denial then froth about how bad the other side is (as if that makes Obama's reversals some how "okay".) The Left once had integrity. It's mostly gone now.
And the IRS/DOJ scandals are real. (Even Huffpo seems to get it) I don't know how bad or big they will get, and the GOP will overplay and be obnoxious - but thoughtful people still need to be concerned about what's unfolding. And the pattern it may represent. If the President was a GOP with the same info we have now - hell fire and frothing invective would be seething from Move-on to Media matters.

John Smart said @ 18:

And the IRS/DOJ scandals are real.

Well, you're half right.

Brad & Earnest you are taking my defense of the DOJ response to THIS particular instance of the activities of a less than trusted name in news as my support for Holder's previous prosecutions.

Not sure how either of you get their from the content of my posts but I'l state this one more time for clarity. In this particular case the "journalist" was not contacted by a whistle blower or leaker but TARGETED by the "journalist" to become a source for classified information for purely POLITICAL purposes, which is consistent with the organization for which he works mission statement.

That is relevant because they have a proven history of using information NOT to inform but to do damage the President, the Democrats and the country. If there were an organization with a similar history on the other side of the political spectrum I would have the SAME concerns!

If you think this proactive and aggressive attempt to acquire and publish sensitive national security information is "OK" I have to ask what the difference is between the SPYING activities of Russia or China or any other nation state?

What is truly disturbing is that Obama administration apologists who criticized Glenn Greenwald here do not see that this was not an isolated incident.

I'd strongly urge readers to listen to the interview of Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project for Government Oversight (POGO) by Gina Kim of Moyers and Company about the Justice Departments seizure of records for 20 phone lines of AP reporters as part of a leak investigation pertaining to CIA activity in Yemen.

Brian observed:

"This Justice Department has lost its sense of the sanctity of the First Amendment."

What Wikileaks has repeatedly established is that our government frequently utilizes claims of "national security" and the classification of information to prevent the American public from gaining access to information that is simply embarrassing to the government, or, worse, reflects crimes committed by our own government abroad.

It is the height of hypocrisy for Obama administration apologists to have recognized the threat to the First Amendment embodied in this type of intrusion when it was carried out by a Republican administration but to fail to recognize it when it is carried out by a Democratic administration.

I'm not sure precisely what Stumptownhero means @20 when he refers to a journalist's use of "classified information for purely POLITICAL purposes." I am certain, however, that speech for political purposes lies at the very center of the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

One does not have to subpoena a reporter's phone and email records to overcome political propaganda.

The appropriate means for dealing with the despicable propaganda emerging from the likes of Fox "News" is to publicly expose it as such.

Oh, btw stump, while I strive to be earnest, there is no "a" in the name Ernest.

An intriguing aspect of Billy's comment @2 is that the Atlantic Monthly article he linked to actually refutes his position, stating:

Billy has repeatedly claimed that one can see how sensitive U.S. intelligence sources may have been exposed by simply reading or re-reading the original 2009 Rosen article.

Yet, the closest the Rosen article comes is a general reference to "sources inside North Korea" --- a nation of some 25 million people --- had revealed that North Korea had intended to respond to a U.N. Security Resolution with another nuclear test.

The Rosen article went on to recite:

The Rosen article does not contain, as Billy claims @2, a "laundry list of ultra-sensitive intelligence about North Korea's nuclear weapons program." To the contrary, it simply discusses the proposed expansion of North Korean nuclear and missile programs, such as the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile --- programs that have long been followed by our national media.

The article does cite a source inside the National Geopspatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), to the effect that the agency "spotted" Trasporter-Ejection Launchers, but then lost track of them.

BFD! Everyone on the planet knows that the U.S. employs spy satellites for intelligence purposes. Where's the deep, dark secrets that were compromised by the Rosen article, Billy?

I have not said anything about the government's actions with respect to the James Rosen case.

However, both Glenn and Brad have tried to frame the debate as if I had. They think they can trick unsophisticated readers into thinking this is a debate about whether or not the government did (and is doing) the right thing.

This is a tried and true tactic. Glenn and Brad know they can sway people to their side by making readers choose between the reporter and the government.

But this is about neither the government nor the reporter. This is about Glenn Greenwald's incessant lying.

Billy @23,

No, this is about your now well-refuted claim of lying. Greenwald refuted you and did a good job. You're losing this argument.

But maybe you'd care to refute Greenwald's claim that YOU'RE a liar by calling him a big fan of Issa's?

And by the way, your repeated references to people who don't believe your feebly made case and DO believe Brad's and Glenn's very well made cases as "unsophisticated" are insulting and obnoxious.

@David Lasagna,

Greenwald didn't even address the crux what I said, let alone refute it.

As for Greenwald being a fan of Darrell Issa, I was referring to his comment in support of Issa's ridiculous Benghazi investigation. He said that "there should be investigations, even if the Republicans are doing it for political ends." I don't agree.

If you want to be tricked by tactics aimed at misleading unsophisticated readers, that's cool. That's what Glenn Greenwald is all about now. Just like Darrell Issa, he doesn't want his followers to be able to make informed decisions about their government. Informed decision making does not serve their respective agendas.

This is about Glenn Greenwald's incessant lying.

Actually, it now seems to be about your unsupported accusations that he is lying, "incessant[ly" or otherwise. You have offered absolutely no evidence to support that very serious charge, which I took quite seriously and attempted to look into. You could have --- should have --- made your case for disagreeing with him, because clearly you have no evidence that he is lying and, instead, keep sticking with a case that you are simply unable to support.

And now, to make matters worse, you'd rather charge folks with being "unsophisticated" and Glenn and I with using some magical tactic to trick readers. We discussed the case --- and offered your side of it --- fairly and openly. I'm sorry if you don't care for the results, Billy, but accusing the world of being unfair to you, rather than making your case, as you have been allowed to do from the jump, is less than impressive.

Billy, you have repeatedly referred to people lying incessantly. Perhaps you could hitch your high-horse to the rail, and provide some evidence to support your rather libelous assertion?

StumpTownHero said @ 20:

I'l state this one more time for clarity. In this particular case the "journalist" was not contacted by a whistle blower or leaker but TARGETED by the "journalist" to become a source for classified information...

And I'll state this again one more time for clarity: Yes, that's what many journalists (no quotes needed) actually do. It is not unusual in the slightest. And I am a journalist telling that to you, if it makes any difference.

...for purely POLITICAL purposes, which is consistent with the organization for which he works mission statement.

No matter the reason --- and, hopefully you know by now, I am an unrelenting Fox "News" critic for years --- the government has no business making those determinations. Do you want a Bush-like Administration determining that, say, MSNBC or CNN or NYTimes is only taking action "for purely POLITICAL purposes" and can therefore be spied upon for years on end? Really?

That is relevant because they have a proven history of using information NOT to inform but to do damage the President, the Democrats and the country.

Right. And while I don't believe that Fox "News" is a legitimate news organization in any way, shape or form, that is my opinion, and not the government's. Rosen was doing the job of a journalist --- one can certainly argue that he was doing it poorly, but that's not related here --- and should not be investigated like a criminal for having done so.

If you think this proactive and aggressive attempt to acquire and publish sensitive national security information is "OK" I have to ask what the difference is between the SPYING activities of Russia or China or any other nation state?

One is a Constitutionally protected activity, the other is not.

Brad, Ernest, reasonable readers: Give up on 'Billy' already, and his 'Stumpy' dittohead there, too, who may be one and the same shothead, different mask.
Fer gawdsakes, 'Be lies' Billy is a (Gov't agent) paid internet infection, (fairly high pay-grade apparently, judging by the good grammar and composition, even if it is hollow content), straight from Cass Sunstein's 'cross'infomation mission (Obama instigated) spreading "cognitive dissonance" on targeted websites set in priority of widest political influence especially democratic influence, (read: those 'opposing tyranny'). Glenn's worldwide web influence --- advocating democratic openness, prosecuting secrecy despots --- makes himself a high-priority target of USA tyranny for blanket suppression.
[By 'cross'information I mean snarly, tempermental, implacable.]

Actually, that Billy 'the Gov't propaganda injection troll' showed up here in attack mode, is like a badge of respect and honor, for the integrity in Bradblog's commitment to democratic principle and spreading the influence of Justice. Those are exactly the blogs the Sunstein Squad is out to breakdown.
Congratulations Brad, your blog has been assigned a agent trying to suppress your good works. First they ignore you, then they fight you.
Then you win.

'Billy' whoever-you-are working all day trying to dispirit America, while cashing a paycheck funded by American taxpayers: you are a traitor. A Judas. Tell your parents what you do for a living.
Maybe you can figure out you flubbed your assignment here, and ready advice is to stop collecting voodoo pins in your gut and through your ears --- feeling migraine and cluster headaches on your job lately? --- and scram. I think you can.

-
Randy D @12 suggests reporting meetings between an obstreperous troll and his target. Well, recently Mother Jones did it:
(MotherJones Video -meet-climate-trolls) We Tracked Down Our Biggest Troll … and Kind of Liked Him ~ Ever wonder what an internet troll is like in person? We met one in his lair. — By James West and Tim McDonnell, May. 20, 2013

-
My acrid comment about intercepted emails in this case --- which case are we talking about, the AP wiretap? the Rosen wiretap? Mitch McConnell's office leak? the Occupy cellphones wiretaps? --- How did they find that specific recording in their infinite collection?

Any single recorded communication is like looking for a needle in a thousand haystacks, like trying to find a snowflack in a blizzard.
Listen, you 'non-scientific' types, real s l o w: Every. Electronic. Transmission. Is. Recorded. (Since Dubya/Cheney's anti-American 'PATRIOT Act'.)
And the eavesdroppers don't need no stinking court order. EVERY communication is intercepted. What part of EVERY is not understood?

Every communication is recorded. (That doesn't mean all of it is inspected or analyzed or 'connected to other dots' --- they can't see everything because there is too much.) The espionage eavesdropping practice and the worldwide capacity of it has been long-and-widely reported in news stories.

Here's a recent news update, about what is done, who does it, where, and the tax dollars at work:
(Wired report) The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say), By James B amford, 03.15.12
Pull quotes:

"The NSA has become the largest, most covert, and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever."

"In secret listening rooms nationwide, NSA software examines every email, phone call, and tweet as they zip by."

"The former NSA official held his thumb and forefinger close together: 'We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.'"

Notice the word EVERY in there. Without question, it means total. The only question is, as it seems to me to ask: How do they find one single reporter's phone calls mixed in storage with ALL phone calls?

NSA/CIA/FBI so-called 'intelligence community' are not the only agents collecting Total Information Awareness. Some 'data collectors' might not even know they are CIA agents inasmuch as they blankly believe the fictional version of world affairs framed and told in CIA propaganda, and they 'just do their job,' record people's locations and activity, and pass the data into the 'intel.commun.' Earthling TotalData Base.
I'm thinking of the phone companies; (as in 'The President's Analyst' movie, TPC is equally powerful or moreso than the NSA/CIA/FBI. ... youngsters can look up who 'TPC' is).

(thru EFF) What Location Tracking Looks Like, March 29, 2011 | By Seth Schoen
It's an animated display of phone records of subject 'Spitz' travel locations, times, and message transmissions minute-by-minute for 6 months. Which is ordinary everyday 'Invoice Billing Information' of customer accounts ... for The Phone Co. Click the link, watch the 'video' --- it'll blow your mind.

-
It's getting late now; I'll continue this tomorrow. There are more news items on unlawful USGovt total citizen surveillances which have been reported, which I can copy in (long) comments here ... and which you perhaps haven't seen, Brad and Ernest and reasonable persons.

... I remain surprised (Why not?) that you'all did not identify the bogus 'Billy' right away, as the corruption-monied infiltrating 'cognitive-dissonance' troublemaker and spit-stirrer 'he' is, by his first sentence. Why not? Spot him, and then laugh his spurious specious 'good grammar and composition' totally away in derision and ridicule.

meremark @29--

Could you provide a link or some kind of evidence for this Cass Sunstein "cross information mission, Obama instigated" that you reference? This is the first I've heard of that one.

Also, while I'm sure there are trolls out there, it seems to me that once you get into the he's a troll, she's a troll mantra, there's no stopping it. Why not you as the chief troll, cleverly disguising yourself as the one outing the other lesser trolls that we are too blind to see? The perfect cover. See what I mean? Where do you stop once you go down that paranoid rabbit hole?

If, on the other hand, you have evidence backing up your claim that Billy is a highly paid government troll, I'm sure we'd all be interested to see it. Thanks.

Brad & Meremark,

Since you both defend the right of journalists to proactive;y obtain classified information tell me how that is not the definition of SPYING? Additionally, if that information is published and sources are killed or compromised and national security harmed should they face ANY consequences?

If there are none in your worlds then I suggest that our enemies should make sure that their spies simple get jobs in "news" organizations.

Right on Meremark. Reading this thread I became convinced we were dealing with a paid troll trying harder to spread the "Greenwald cannot be trusted" meme than dealing with any actual facts. Keep up the good work. When the Greenwalds of the world hit a nerve with the PTB, the Bill-lies of the world will gladly cash those PTB paychecks.

And David, Sustein's views are fairly well known on the subject, so you can easily do a google search regarding his views that "undesirable information" needs to be actively opposed through various means, both open and less so.

More importantly though, and from a broader perspective, avoid or ignoring the presence of active disinfo campaigns kind of like the "conspiracy theorists have no evidence!" crowd who ignore the existence of known conspiracies, like Tuskeegee, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. In other words, you at least imply it is unreasonable to expect the troll label to have any value. To the contrary, ever since US intelligence "embedded" our media with favorable agents (see Judy Miller for instance, though it began decades earlier), disinformation is virtually everywhere.

Yes, you have ID'd the problem of how to spot disinfo and separate the wheat from the chaff. No, it isn't easy. That doesn't mean you give up. "By their fruit ye shall know them" would be a good place to start. Proceed from there; you gotta start somewhere.

One thing's for sure, though: avoiding the presence of disinfo, and its corrosive effects on discourse, is very unwise. Look at how Billie has us diverted and focused on his bogus charges rather than the substance of Greenwald's recent stories and comments.

Let me try to clean up that butchered first sentence in the third paragraph:

"More importantly though, and from a broader perspective, avoiding or ignoring the presence of active disinfo campaigns is kind of like the "conspiracy theorists have no evidence!" crowd who ignore the existence of known conspiracies, like Tuskeegee, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc."

A follow up question to your assertion that the nationality or status of the reporter makes it a Constitutionally protected activity, does it make a difference if the "journalists" acquisition and publication of the information that affected and or changed the policies of the nation were for domestic purposes or foreign purposes? In other words is it okay for a reporter to publish sensitive information that would: a. benefit a political party, b. a political candidate, c. an Investor/hedge fund, d. a Corporation or industry?

On the flip side would the acquisition and distribution of information similarly obtained cause you problems if it was used to benefit: a. a foreign Nation, b. foreign investor/hedge fund, c. foreign corporation?

Re Meremark @29:

While I appreciate the thought that went into your lengthy comment, I think it important that those reading your comment keep in mind that The BRAD BLOG is committed to reporting on the basis of independently verifiable "evidence."

Your assumption that "Billy" & "StumpTownHero" are "Gov't propaganda injection troll[s]" is just that, a supposition. It may well be true. It may not be.

Cass Sunstein is an eminent law professor whose book, Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America, provides excellent insight into the extent to which the radical, right-wing, Robert Bork-founded, Koch Brothers-funded Federalist Society and their GOP sponsors have undermined the rule of law.

If you are going to reduce a respected legal scholar to a "cross information mission" propagandist, the very least you could have done is provide a link to support it; perhaps something in the way of "evidence"?

I do appreciate your references to the excellent body of work James Bamford has assembled regarding the NSA, which, as Bamford points out, engages in wholesale eavesdropping by capturing the full stream of communication and funneling it through super-computers, whereas, the DOJ intrusions referred to in this article entail what Bamford calls "retail" eavesdropping on specified targets.

Re StumpTownHero @31 & 34:

Do you really believe that anyone reading these comments cannot see the obvious distinction between someone who acquires classified information to aid a foreign government (commonly known as espionage) and a reporter who seeks out a Sibel Edmonds or a Wikileaks in order to obtain information necessary to insure that the American public learns about how their own government has deceived its own citizens?

StumpTownHero said @ 34:

A follow up question to your assertion that the nationality or status of the reporter makes it a Constitutionally protected activity

I didn't say anything at all about "nationality" or "status" of a reporter making a difference here. Where did you get that?

does it make a difference if the "journalists" acquisition and publication of the information that affected and or changed the policies of the nation were for domestic purposes or foreign purposes?

No. Unless it was done to aid an enemy, as per the Espionage Act (see below.)

In other words is it okay for a reporter to publish sensitive information that would: a. benefit a political party, b. a political candidate, c. an Investor/hedge fund, d. a Corporation or industry?

Yes.

On the flip side would the acquisition and distribution of information similarly obtained cause you problems if it was used to benefit: a. a foreign Nation, b. foreign investor/hedge fund, c. foreign corporation?

Perhaps you haven't read this [emphasis added]:

Now you are discussing espionage, which is covered in the Espionage Act of 1917 (which is what Kim is being charged under, as I understand it). They also tried to use that one against Dan Ellsberg. And that is part of the case against Bradley Manning as well. I suspect the government will lose on charges related to that Act because, as Ellsberg explained it to me some time ago (here's a related interview I did with him in regard to Manning and Julian Assange) the government must be able to show that Kim --- or in your argument, Rosen --- was attempting to aid an enemy of the U.S. While there might be some case, that I'm unaware of, to be made against Kim in that regard, I can't even imagine what you or anyone else would come up with to show that Rosen was attempting to aid North Korea against the U.S.

There are no other laws, that I am familiar with, that have been made by Congress that otherwise abridge the freedom of the press. Therefore, what was Rosen co-conspiring to do? Help the enemy? Really?

Or are you suggesting there is some other law that Congress has passed that allowed the Government to abridge the freedom of the press (and that you happen to be fine with?)

Ernest A. Canning @35,

Cass Sunstein is an eminent law professor whose book, Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America, provides excellent insight into the extent to which the radical, right-wing, Robert Bork-founded, Koch Brothers-funded Federalist Society and their GOP sponsors have undermined the rule of law.

If you are going to reduce a respected legal scholar to a "cross information mission" propagandist, the very least you could have done is provide a link to support it; perhaps something in the way of "evidence"?

Good advice.

Let me follow it, not in the degree they commenter you chastened did, but in a more mild but still troubling manner:

Conspiracy theories generally attribute extraordinary powers to certain agents – to plan, to control others, to maintain secrets, and so forth.
...
Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy.
...
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

(The Empire Strikes Back). Quoting from: Harvard University Law School
Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series
University of Chicago Law School
Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series
Paper No. 199
~and~
University of Chicago Law School
Law & Economics Research Paper Series
Paper No. 387
Conspiracy Theories
CASS R. SUNSTEIN
University of Chicago - Law School
ADRIAN VERMEULE
Harvard University - Harvard Law School

Just sayin ...

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama�s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama�s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for �overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.� In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-�independent� advocates to �cognitively infiltrate� online groups and websites � as well as other activist groups � which advocate views that Sunstein deems �false conspiracy theories� about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens� faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.

FRIDAY, JAN 15, 2010 07:16 AM CST
Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal
Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
BY GLENN GREENWALD

so ernie said...If you are going to reduce a respected legal scholar to a "cross information mission" propagandist, the very least you could have done is provide a link to support it; perhaps something in the way of "evidence"?.....

kind of ironic that greenwald produced that evidence in 2010,huh?

LMK @32,

What is the basis for your thinking I may be avoiding or ignoring disinformation campaigns? Notice how I am not avoiding or ignoring what may be a disinformation campaign by you and meremark by not accepting as fact unsubstantiated claims by you both that Billy is a paid government troll.

You say--

In other words, you at least imply it is unreasonable to expect the troll label to have any value.--

I say--No, I don't. I was suggesting that unsubstantiated claims, if taken as truth without knowing whether they're grounded in reality or not is one step closer to chaos/madness. Cuz if those are the rules, then the rules are out the window.

Dredd and Karen--Thanks for actual answers to my question.

Karen @41 ... yeah, kinda i-i-ronick.
It was an accident, I held no expectation nevermind intention of tripping-up people to reveal they did not know Cass Sunstein is installed by Obama --- so-called 'Information Czar' --- directing a department ('group' of federal employees, a couple thousand is a fair (informed) estimate of size), tasked to place stories in newspapers, counter other stories to displace them, track internet 'leaders' and 'most active topics' in order, then, to adjust and guide the (web) discussions ... in political ways advantageous to Obama administration.

And, yes, it is ('they' have) known (admitted) the 'Information Czar Sunstein' has staff of trolls, (paid, really sharp, not 'ideologuing' with their comments but just contentious, obstructionist, provoking targeted victims demanding a response --- f'r instance "nobody's answered my questions wah! wah! waaaah!" --- never advancing the point(s) in discussion, mostly side-tracking a/o digressing a/o slandering, name-calling --- "I'm not a troll, YOU who called 'troll' are the troll(s)" --- and, in general, they do tradecraft (that's CIAspeak for its 'work') called 'cognitive dissonance.'
It's not misinfo, disinfo, raw lies, nor half-truth 'limited hangouts', although all those means (and more) are employed as ways to mess with citizens' minds to instill uncertainty (of info), distrust (of info), and, (pandemic in these days of Dubya's Shadow), attention-fatigue apathy and mute withdrawal from 'them'/'whoever'/don't care administering outrageous egregious shock-and-awe information overload.
In many cases one 'person' trolls with multiple names on the blog(site) he is assigned to. Double-barreled blasts. 'Meme' machine guns. = info o.d.

The most-reliable 'tell' of the 'pro' trolls is their proper (literate) compositions. Well grammar'd. Verb tenses matches sentence. Dangling predicates don't. Subdued or subtle erudition.
So, y'know, check that syndrome and profile of the symptoms in the up-thread "troll" comments I 'diagnosed' and accused.

Here's a first-person story. Believe it. Or don't. It begins by giving readers reasons to doubt or disbelieve the story, counterposed against the credible reputation (believed) of the website that posted it, (ATS = AboveTopSecret.com), but then disclaimed it, and now doesn't speak of it.
(As usual ('tradecraft') in the mirrored halls of double-crossing 'intel' agents and agencies, stories have been circulating for a couple of years claiming that 10+ yr.old ATS and similar kin-site, Cryptome.org, (and other 'govt leaks' sites), are themselves disinformative about the disinformation news they 'publish.')
You may think they think you think they think ... you think they are [ ]good [ ]bad; for as long as you like to '(re)think' (the rabbit hole) in suspended judgment.
Yet, at some point, you have to come out of it to engage the world of extant thoughts and words, 'dive' into the info flow and read/watch what's going on, and decide for yourself by your own judgment so far as you can (know) what's [ ]bad [ ]good. Or consign yourself resigned living to spectate not participate in 'knowing' or 'being' the news.

Just read it. Like the parts you agree with and dislike the parts you don't want to agree with:
I Was a Paid Internet Shill, by Anonymous, of uncertain custody and provenance (which is par for the 'intel.' game)
In which he describes his desparation for a job, how he found it, where it was located, and then ...

After discussing pay (which was much better than I’d hoped) and a few other details, he then went over the need for absolute privacy and secrecy. "You can’t tell anyone what we do here. ... Is this going to be a problem for you?" I assured him it would not. "Well, OK. Shall we get started?" ...

My task? "To support Israel and counter anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic posters." Fine with me. I had no opinions one way or another about Israel, and who likes anti-Semites and Nazis? Not me, anyway. But I didn’t know too much about the topic.

"That’s OK," she said. "You’ll pick it up as you go along. For the most part, at first, you will be doing what we call 'meme-patrol.' This is pretty easy. Later if you show promise, we’ll train you for more complex arguments, where more in-depth knowledge is necessary."

She handed me two binders with sheets enclosed in limp plastic. The first was labeled simply "Israel" in magic-marker on the cover, and it had two sections.
The first section contained basic background info on the topic. I would have to read and memorize some of this, as time went on. It had internet links for further reading, essays and talking points, and excerpts from some history books.

The second, and larger, section was called "Strat" (short for 'strategy') with long lists of "dialogue pairs." These were specific responses to specific postings. If a poster wrote something close to "X," we were supposed to respond with something close to "Y."

"You have to mix it up a bit, though," said my trainer. "Otherwise it gets too obvious. Learn to use a thesaurus."

This section also contained a number of hints for de-railing conversations that went too far away from what we were attempting.
These strategies included various forms of personal attacks, complaining to the forum moderators, smearing the characters of our opponents, using images and icons effectively, and even dragging the tone of the conversation down with sexual innuendo, links to pornography, or other such things.

"Sometimes we have to fight dirty," our trainer told us. "Our opponents don’t hesitate to, so we can’t either."

The second binder was smaller, and it contained information specific to the web sites I would be assigned to. The sites I would work were: ...

Seeing the ambiguities in it --- "he said" "she said" "my trainer" "our trainer" --- I doubt its authentic honesty, but I see grains of truth in it which reprise or corroborate other grains in other references in other times I have seen; (it is set in 2011, and that year had an upsurge in 'pro' trolling (my personal observation) and the advent of 'Informcognitiveinfiltrationation Czar' Sunstein ... hiring them).

Anyway, at the link are 'further reference' links, for 'veracity' checking. Those links make it worth your while to scope out (browse by) the site and judge for yourself. Often I judge a lot of sites ('good') by the quality of the 'kinship' sites ('blog roll') linked to, (if no links, ahem,coughbradblogcough, then 'bad').

And, mindful, my citation (excerpted) is only one story in the big webcity. About 'trolls' perhaps searchengine 'I was internet troll' like I did to find my citation; (RE-find it, since I remembered reading it about 6 months back and was searcheng'ing for it specifically). So snoop around, walk the web, pay some attention (time) to what the 'pro' snoops are doing in the 'intel. community.' The more you're in the streets, the more you know your way around [ ]True [ ]False
(For instance, observe my fb entry. Can you see it is phony? Sure you can.)

Moreover and totally: Remember my main point: 'Believable' reports, (not saying 'reliable'), claim every. stitch. of. every. earthling's. communication. is. recorded.
I believe so --- that it is possible, yet maybe probably still with bugs in 'the system' and non-operational --- because I know about computer technology, and the state of its art, and I can do the math. Today's capacity more-or-less handles billions of records (souls on Earth) each checked/updated a billion times a second. (My first computer (IBM, 1963) clocked thousandths of a second handling thousands of 'memories.' A thousand to a billion is not squared, it's cubed.)
If the automobile industry had done what the computer industry did in the last 50 years, today a car would be the size of a skateboard, go 1000 mph, get 10,000 mpg, and cost $5. Try to keep up.

When Associated Press or 'reporter' Rosen cries of being 'victim' eavesdropped-on and recorded, I'm like, "duh. so what? everyone is and all of us are being victimized and: It. Is. WRONG. It's immoral. Let's pull together, make common Cause, and STOP ALL of it."
Govt spying categorically and govt spying (political) targets is a distinction without a difference.

(How to STOP?, you ask. Simple: Abolish the CIA. It only takes a line-item-veto pen stroke. I tell you one thing --- without the taxpayers' money to pay them, there'd be a lot lot fewer trolls. And no 'Top Secrets' --- put the spy-satellite data free on the internet, like city traffic cams. We paid for it.)

Again I promise to supply more comment(ary)s tomorrow. You'll see why I'm putting stuff in separate comment 'compartments' ... to make it easy for Brad to repress or excise any 'controversial' info-reports he feels or is compelled to.

David, you're right, my words were poorly phrased. The point I was trying to emphasize concerned your statement:

"Also, while I'm sure there are trolls out there, it seems to me that once you get into the he's a troll, she's a troll mantra, there's no stopping it. Why not you as the chief troll, cleverly disguising yourself as the one outing the other lesser trolls that we are too blind to see? The perfect cover. See what I mean? Where do you stop once you go down that paranoid rabbit hole?

If, on the other hand, you have evidence backing up your claim that Billy is a highly paid government troll, I'm sure we'd all be interested to see it. Thanks."

I suppose a more accurate reading of your words is that (a) you admit trolls exist, (b) you believe the label is easily used to obfuscate or label, or otherwise lacks value, and (c) you prefer some sort of evidence "confirming" a person is a disinfo troll. Am I on track so far?

The next question then is this: what would you accept as evidence? This forms the crux of many online disagreements, I've noticed. Some people will refuse to accept any inferential evidence and essentially demand a signed confession by the wrongdoer.

For instance, it is "substantiated" that our media has been manipulated for years (see Operation Inkwell, Judith Miller, etc.). So what would you require to "substantiate" that Mr. Bill (to use just one example) was a manipulator of discourse? Are any inferences permissible or do we need that proverbial signed confession?

My "evidence" (though perhaps not evidence to you) is (a) Bradblog has been targeted by Stradfor (to name but one), (b) history is replete with evidence of behind the scenes manipulation of our media and political discourse and (c) disinfo troll attacks can be characterized in various ways, including whether the focus is on a person, an incident, a specific fact, etc. Troll attacks tend to be weak attacks (though not all weak attacks are troll attacks) because by definition they are not based on the truth but on obscuring the truth. The more half truths, omissions, deceptions, etc, the more likely the post is a disinfo troll (either that or an incredibly weak thinker or brainwash victim). Based on those factors I do not think it is at all unreasonable to assume some posters in this item are disinfo trolls.

Even more to the point (and while acknowledging Brad's opinion counts far more than mine here) I don't see how a blog like this, given the subject matter, can be anything BUT an attractor for disinfo artists. Which is not to say there aren't plenty of non-disinfo posters here, just that we can't assume the same good faith exists among all visitors here.

Anyway, I've shown a reasonable basis for believing certain posters are disinfo. Meremark may have different reasons for such beliefs. Either way, though, throwing the baby out with the bathwater ala "Where do you stop once you go down that paranoid rabbit hole?" is not a choice. At least you should admit there is something of value connected to that rabbit hole even if you struggle with how to analyze it.

DOH! Meant Operation Mockingbird:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ki/Operation_Mockingbird

To Dredd & Karen:

I asked for a link and evidence. You graciously provided it. I thank you for that.

Had I known about the 2008 Sunstein "cognitive infiltration" memo, I would not have defended his reputation. From the perspective of the First Amendment, Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" memo is as pernicious as the torture memos from Jay S. Bybee and John Yoo were to the rule of law.

Those memos should disqualify Sunstein, Bybee and Yoo from serving as jurists. Sadly, Bybee currently sits on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

Earnest,

You rightfully identified the activities of a foreign person obtaining and publishing classified info as espionage but you willfully ignore the fact the espionage can be a domestic operation as Rosen himself admitted in his email that one of his motivations was to "change US policy".

Now given his employers business operations in Asia I don't think even the CAI knows what benefits could fall to News Corp if they successfully alter either a immediate response to an event or the long term policy of the US. coercing a source to divulge National secrets is no different than a Wall Street firm obtaining insider info!

You see in your effort to protect the right of journalists to dig up sources you ignore the motivations of the digger and the diggers employer.

StumpTownHero said @ 47:

You rightfully identified the activities of a foreign person obtaining and publishing classified info as espionage but you willfully ignore the fact the espionage can be a domestic operation as Rosen himself admitted in his email that one of his motivations was to "change US policy".

Huh? I'd like to "change US policy" as well, btw. If I encourage someone to leak classified information to me, and I publish it here, does that make me a spy too? Really?

Now given his employers business operations in Asia I don't think even the CAI knows what benefits could fall to News Corp if they successfully alter either a immediate response to an event or the long term policy of the US. coercing a source to divulge National secrets is no different than a Wall Street firm obtaining insider info!

You see in your effort to protect the right of journalists to dig up sources you ignore the motivations of the digger and the diggers employer.

With all due respect, in your (apparent) zeal to (seemingly) protect/apologize for what the unprecedented attack on journalists and journalism that the Obama Administration is carrying out, you are making up "laws" and "crimes" out of whole cloth.

Perhaps you failed to read my comment @ 37 above? If so, please do so now.

Afterward, you can tell me what law keeps a journalist --- even one from Fox "News" --- from wanting to "change US policy" and how said law does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Otherwise, you continue to repeat the same nonsense over and over again here and, frankly, the disinformation you are offering is getting rather tiring.

First, StumpTownHero, I said not one word to suggest that the crime of "espionage" was limited to individuals who are not U.S. citizens.

Second, I am deeply disturbed that you deliberately ignored that portion of Brad Friedman's comment @37 to the effect that the government's espionage case against Dan Ellsberg collapsed like a wet taco because it could not prove that Ellsberg intended to aid an enemy of the U.S. --- though, it should be noted that the case was formally dismissed due to the government's misconduct, which included the fact that G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt broke into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist.

The right of citizens, and the press, to influence U.S. foreign policy lies at the heart of First Amendment activity.

As explained by Justice Hugo Black in New York Times vs. United States the case in which the Supreme Court refused to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers --- a refusal that came despite vigorous claims by our government that publication of those theretofore "national secrets" would be damaging to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy [emphasis added]:

In arguing against the right of the media to influence the course of U.S. foreign policy, stumped one, you've sought nothing less than the right to use "national secrets" as a means to destroy the core purpose of the First Amendment.

The fact that Rosen and the Faux "News" network seek to influence the course of foreign policy in the exact opposite direction that you or I might like to see it go does not alter the fact that both Rosen and his propagandist employer were engaged in protected First Amendment activity.

Earnest.

I did not address the Ellsburg case because I did not mention it or reference it in my argument that ROSEN's actions are those of a S P Y or is it in any way equivalent as that information was OFFERED not solicited!

You seem to be fine with a Domestic source influencing policy under the cover of a free press REGARDLESS of the consequences. I simply am not. In your world it would have been ok for a US reporter with German sympathies to publish D Day invasion information.

Yes I know that the level of information in this story was not that important but the point is in the realm of National Security Journalists should not be the ones making those decisions.

Drawing the line on the limits of an unfettered press at National Security does not harm the purpose of the first and if you did some reading on the subject of reporters and the Revolutionary war you might see that the founders had similar concerns about lose lips and ships!

Stump @50,

You're doing a fine job of not responding to counter-arguments made. Which gets us back to the subject of trolls. Not saying you are one or you're not one. Don't much matter to me. Non-sense can come from any direction or political affiliation, as far as I can tell.

But when you start snarking that somebody else should maybe do a little history reading as if that would validate your point, I gotta wonder what sort of selective history reading you've been doing. Cuz the reading I've been doing tells me that the "in the interest of national security" claim, the one YOU are now making, is THE CATCH-ALL PHRASE for covering every manner of illegal, immoral, ill-advised government bullshit.

Rosen was acting as a spy, stumpy? For whom?

"When will journalists take responsibility for what they do without circling the wagons and shouting that the First Amendment is under attack?"

Walter Pincus

StumpTownHero @ 50 said (repeated, actually, after, clearly, not reading responsive comments previously):

I did not address the Ellsburg case because I did not mention it or reference it in my argument that ROSEN's actions are those of a S P Y or is it in any way equivalent as that information was OFFERED not solicited!

Spies are attempting to aid the enemy, as per the Espionage Act of 1917. Are you seriously arguing that Rosen was attempting to aid North Korea? And that AP was attemping to aid al-Qaeda? Really? Got evidence to support that very serious assertion? Or are you just willing to say anything to back up Obama and, apparently, Ari Fleischer (and a whole bunch of Republican Senators) who agree with you?

You seem to be fine with a Domestic source influencing policy under the cover of a free press REGARDLESS of the consequences.

Huh? Are you saying that most articles do NOT include someone --- either the author or a source quoted within --- trying to "influence policy"? Seriously? Is this your first day on Planet Earth, Stumpy?

I simply am not. In your world it would have been ok for a US reporter with German sympathies to publish D Day invasion information.

If that had happened, it would be VERY easy to argue that the publication was meant to help aid the enemy, in which case, prosecution under the Espionage Act would have been appropriate. You have not made the case that any of the journalists in question were attempting to aid an enemy of the U.S. however.

Yes I know that the level of information in this story was not that important but the point is in the realm of National Security Journalists should not be the ones making those decisions.

I see. So the government should be deciding what is reportable and what is not? And you're cool with them doing so in secret on NatSec grounds?

So, the publication of classified information showing that Iraq did NOT have WMD would be perfectly prosecutable by the Bush Administration in your argument. Ellsberg should have been prosecuted under that same argument. And, apparently, you are also supportive of the prosecutions of both Bradley Manning and Julian Assange under this argument, as well as the idea that the Bush Administration would have been perfectly correct to prosecute journalists for reporting on the NSA spying program, the black prison sites and torture by the CIA.

Got it. Those, of course, were all issues of National Security, and we should have allowed the Bush Administration to decide if journalists were allowed to publish it, and allowed them to throw journalists in jail who did not obey them.

Drawing the line on the limits of an unfettered press at National Security does not harm the purpose of the first and if you did some reading on the subject of reporters and the Revolutionary war you might see that the founders had similar concerns about lose lips and ships!

Really? They had a funny way of enshrining that concern into our nation's founding document:

Brad, in responding to StumpTownHero's latest mumblings wrote @54:

So, the publication of classified information showing that Iraq did NOT have WMD would be perfectly prosecutable by the Bush Administration in your argument. Ellsberg should have been prosecuted under that same argument.

Actually, Brad, under the stumped one's twisted rationale, The New York Times should have been prosecuted for espionage for publishing the Pentagon Papers. After all, until the paper published the Pentagon Papers, their content was classified as secret, supposedly in the name of national security.

Hell, under his rationale, the members of the U.S. Supreme Court who refused to enjoin the publication of the Pentagon Papers should have been prosecuted as well.

No point citing the words of the First Amendment to Stump, Brad. He/she does not believe the First Amendment is constitutional.

Why do you continually insist on twisting my clear distinction between the great investigative stories of the past and THIS case? Rosen did not respond to a call from a whistleblower/leaker nor did he merely offer his services as a conduit but actively sought specific information that he knew to be classified. That is the activity of a SPY!

Whether Fox News deserves to be indicted depends upon their editors complicity in Rosen activities. If they tasked him with the same language of his e-mail then yes they too should be prosecuted.

Sorry if you think that there is no distinction to be made between Rosens' actions and that of the typical investigative journalist but the legal system does and will.

Lastly, Brad no one on this board could know what benefits could befall News Corps extensive Asian holdings with the alteration of US policy toward North Korea. What we DO KNOW is that News
Corp has a documented history of spying on government officials and exerting undue influence on government policies to their financial benefit with the mere existence of Fox News and the economic and political profits that flow from it as exhibits A-Z

Stumpy,
Here is yet another example of the kind of contemptible persecution of whistleblowers this Administration has become famous for.

http://www.commondreams....rg/headline/2013/05/28-8

You wanna trust 'em, fine. Your yellow brick road is made of landmines. Have a nice walk.

Hey StumpTownHero: 1) Can you furnish me with a single legal case establishing that if a reporter seeks classified information for the purpose of exposing how our government has lied to the American people, it constitutes espionage, but if the reporter passively receives and then publishes that same information, it is a protected First Amendment activity?

2) What is the source of your repeated claims that Rosen and Fox "News" actively sought as opposed to passively received the classified information? If there is such a source, where's the link for it?

3) Please explain to us all why the government never charged Rosen with espionage.

If you are unable to provide concise answers to these simple questions, I, and everyone else, should rightly assume that your entire line of reasoning was pulled straight out of your rectum.

StumpTownHero asked @ 56:

Why do you continually insist on twisting my clear distinction between the great investigative stories of the past and THIS case? Rosen did not respond to a call from a whistleblower/leaker nor did he merely offer his services as a conduit but actively sought specific information that he knew to be classified. That is the activity of a SPY!

Then I guess I, and thousands of other journalists are all spies! Call the DoJ! I just admitted to a "criminal act" as you see it!

You are not the only one to offer this entirely made up argument, of late, that journalists must sit around and wait for a classified document to be shared with them, else, asking for one is somehow illegal. It is not. Many of us seek unpublished, secret, and yes, classified information in the daily course of our work. This brand new distinction has never existed before, and only now that a Democratic administration is violating the First Amendment, do we find folks on the supposed-Left forwarding this absurd brand-new argument.

Whether Fox News deserves to be indicted depends upon their editors complicity in Rosen activities. If they tasked him with the same language of his e-mail then yes they too should be prosecuted.

There is absolutely nothing prosecutable in those emails, at least the ones that I've seen. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm sure you'll share it. (Note: Neither Rosen nor Fox has been prosecuted for anything. Wonder why?)

Sorry if you think that there is no distinction to be made between Rosens' actions and that of the typical investigative journalist but the legal system does and will.

It doesn't and won't. Wanna place a friendly wager on that?

Lastly, Brad no one on this board could know what benefits could befall News Corps extensive Asian holdings with the alteration of US policy toward North Korea. What we DO KNOW is that News Corp has a documented history of spying on government officials and exerting undue influence on government policies to their financial benefit with the mere existence of Fox News and the economic and political profits that flow from it as exhibits A-Z

I can't believe that you people are putting me --- me, of all people --- in a position that I must defend Fox "News" for chrissakes! The argument you are making above is as made up as your earlier one about a pretend distinction between asking for docs and being offered them. If Fox has "spied" on government officials --- in other words, done something illegal, like violating their right to privacy, as in the phone hack case in Great Britain --- they should be prosecuted for it. If by "spying" you mean, paying attention to what people in the government are doing and then reporting on it --- even if the reporting is solely in hopes of a financial benefit for the lousy Fox "News" organization or the reprehensible NewsCorp --- there is absolutely nothing illegal about that.

Reporting is always done to exert influence on public policy one way or another. There is no measure of "undue" influence and not "undue" influence. You are making things up, because you have no argument left.

Ernie asked @ 58:

2) What is the source of your repeated claims that Rosen and Fox "News" actively sought as opposed to passively received the classified information? If there is such a source, where's the link for it?

There are emails showing that Rosen was actively working out a system for his source to provide him with materials. I'd go find the link, but I'm trying to finish up so I can go have dinner for a change.

That said, your other two questions (#s 1 & 3) to StumpTownHero remain relevant. I just spoke to the first one, in fact. Maybe the third one, as well. Ol' Stumpy is just making stuff up. Obama Loyalists, on this particular score, are not much better than Bush Loyalists on the very same issues. It's rather disappointing, if unsurprising, to see.